Why do "light" objects fall with the same speed as heavy objects in a vessel that is void of air?
moon landing is a hoax so that test on the moon not credible for me, sure you can try and remove the air from a container as much as you can depending on the strength of the vacuum and the strength of the chamber to withstand this and yes what is left inside will be less dense than air at normal pressure and provide less resistance on items as they fall but the reason they fall is air is because they are more dense so that is not an issue for what im saying. Also there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum, you can not create a chamber that has literally nothing in it, at some point the vacuum gives up or the chamber gives up. even on the best man made vacuum devices, there are still millions of "molecules per cm" left in the chamber.
So you're saying that everything going up-down is being defined by the surrounding medium (to a certain extent; aeroplanes fly due do ascending force as we know); why is that so? This is no polemics, really!
this makes no sense to me sorry.
: the bolt has more molar mass in it than all the other stuff in the picture combined: more atoms, more things to be attracted. The shape of course does its work too: if you mill out the bolt thin enough and form a cup, it will float on lamp oil as well. Now you try to lift said cup out of the oil - why does it feel as heavy as the bolt, why does it still weigh the same?
this does not really make sense either im sorry, the bolt is the most dense thing there, mill it out and it wont be...
the same way a 100 tonne ship can float on water.
Now you try to lift said cup out of the oil - why does it feel as heavy as the bolt, why does it still weigh the same?
what?
Denali and the Empire State Building are only an exampl, but how do you explain the disappearance of ships on the horizon? If the sea is perfectly flat, the ship would fade out, not disappear behind the curvature. Also, there is no magic needed for looking far, far away. I know what perspective is
but yet you are trying the ships over the horizon chestnut on me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epFuMxnd5Kk
You could use a radio telescope or infrared; atmospheric shattering is not sufficient proof for the fact that you can't "see"; you could use different wavelengths to still see things far away.
These things have ranges also, and you are not really viewing anything then are you, also you are just postulating here.
but let's say you could go up as high as you want (balloon): why can't I take a pic of the Eiffel Tower from directly above Bejing?
well according to you you can go to space and take a pic of the whole globe what is the point you are trying to make?
do you believe that other planets exist and that our moon is real (and a sphere)? Why can't we see sun all the time, where does it go?
no i just think other planets are lights in the sky, i dont think there is any physical celestial bodies.
Why can't we see sun all the time, where does it go?
If you are not prepared to at least familiarize yourself with fe concepts then im not going to talk to you anymore dude, read the sidebar.